Comment on “Defining the electromagnetic potentials" Hendrik van Hees∗ Institut f¨urTheoretische Physik, Goethe-Universit¨atFrankfurt, Max-von-Laue-Str. 1, D-60438 Frankfurt am Main, Germany (Dated: August 29, 2020) In this comment it is shown that the argument for a unique determination of the electro- magnetic potentials in classical electrodynamics in1 is flawed. To the contrary the \gauge freedom" of the electromagnetic potentials has proven as one of the most important proper- ties in the development of modern physics, where local gauge invariance with its extension to non-Abelian gauge groups is a key feature in the formulation of the Standard Model of elementary particles in terms of a relativistic quantum field theory. I. INTRODUCTION In1 the author claims that contrary to the standard treatment of the electromagnetic potentials in all textbooks like, e.g.,2{4 on classical Maxwell theory the potentials are to be chosen as those of the Coulomb gauge. As shall be argued in the following, this is not only mathematically wrong but also misleading from a physical (as well as didactic) point of view since the gauge invariance of electromagnetism is the paradigmatic example for a local gauge symmetry demonstrating a gen- eral important concept for the formulation of the Standard Model of elementary particle physics, describing all hitherto observed elementary particles and their interactions in terms of a (renor- malizable) relativistic quantum field theory. In this sense the claim of any fundamental a-priori preference for any specific gauge is also highly misleading from a pedagogical point of view. From the theoretical-physics point of view it is quite commonly accepted for a long time that the fundamental laws governing the realm of classical electrodynamics are the \microscopic" Maxwell equations in differential form (for the historical context see, e.g., the remark in the introductory chapter in2), 1 r × E + @ B = 0; (1) c t r · B = 0; (2) 1 1 r × B − @ E = j (3) c t c r · E = ρ, (4) where the Heaviside-Lorentz system of units has been used, which is more convenient for theoretical purposes than the SI units used in1. II. HELMHOLTZ'S THEOREM First it is important to note that Helmholtz's theorem is applicable to time-dependent as well as to time-independent vector fields and states in a quite general form5,6 that if a vector field V and its first derivatives, which are themselves differentiable, vanish at infinity, it can be decomposed as V = V1 + V2 such that r × V1 = 0 and r · V2 = 0. With given source, r · V = r · V1 = J, and curl r × V = r × V2 = C, the decomposition is unique up to additive constants for the vector fields V1 and V2. In the following we tacitly assume the conditions on the fields needed for the following manipulations being justified. 2 Further there are theorems that any curl-free vector field can be written (at least in any simply connected region of space) as the gradient of a scalar potential, i.e., V1 = −rΦ, where Φ is unique up to a constant and any source-free vector field can be written as the curl of a vector potential V2 = r × A, and of course A is unique only up to an arbitrary gradient field, and this freedom can be used to impose one constraint condition (\gauge condition") on A. Defining r · V = J and r × V = C we have r · V = r · V1 = −∆Φ = J; r × V = r × V2 = r × (r × A) = r(r · A) − ∆A: (5) Since we know from electrostatics how to solve the Poisson equation with the Green's function of the Laplace operator (here for \free space", i.e., without boundary conditions for Cauchy or Neumann problems as needed in electrostatics at presence of conductors or dielectrics), it is convenient to impose the additional constraint r · A = 0 (\Coulomb gauge condition"), such that Z 0 Z 0 3 0 J(x ) 3 0 C(x ) Φ(x) = d x 0 ; A(x) = d x 0 : (6) R3 4πjx − x j R3 4πjx − x j These formulae can be proven using Green's theorem. Then one has (0) (0) V1 = −rΦ + V1 ; V2 = r × A + V2 ; (7) (0) (0) where V1 = const and V2 = const. Of course, if it is known that V1 and V2 vanish at infinity, e.g., if J and C have compact support, these constants are both determined to vanish given the potentials (6). As we shall see, however, Helmholtz's decomposition theorem is not of prime importance to introduce the electromagnetic potentials. For this it is sufficient that a curl-free vector field can be written as the gradient of a scalar potential and that a source-free field can be written as the curl of a vector potential. For a given curl-free vector field its scalar potential is defined up to an additive constant, and for a given source-free vector field its vector potential is only determined up to a gradient of an arbitrary scalar field. In fact, as we shall see, for the solution of Maxwell's equation with given sources ρ and j the Helmholtz decomposition theorem is of not too much 2 2 practical use. One rather needs a Green's function of the D'Alembert operator = ∆ − 1=c @t , of which in classical electrodynamics usually the retarded propagator is the relevant one (for reasons of causality). III. THE ELECTROMAGNETIC POTENTIALS To see, why the claim that there is a preferred or even unique choice of the electromagnetic potentials is flawed, in this Sect. we briefly summarize the standard textbook procedure in intro- ducing the electromagnetic potentials and arguing why they are only defined only up to a gauge transformation. The electromagnetic potentials are introduced using the homogeneous Maxwell equations (1) and (2). Though they have profound physical meaning, from a mathematical point of view they are merely constraint conditions on the electric and magnetic fields, but nevertheless necessary to make the solutions of the complete set of the initial-value problem of Maxwell's equations unique, which describe the charge and current densities as the sources of the electromagnetic field and thus provide the dynamical equations of motion. The homogeneous Maxwell equations (1) and (2) imply the existence of a vector and a scalar potential A and Φ such that 1 E = −r~ Φ − @ A; B(t; x) = r × A(t; x): (8) c t 3 It is also clear that the potentials are not uniquely defined by the electromagnetic field, (E; B) since a gauge transformation to new potentials Φ0 and A0, 1 Φ0 = Φ + @ χ, A0 = A − rχ, (9) c t with an arbitrary scalar field χ leads to the same electromagnetic field (E; B). While E and B are observable fields, operationally defined as providing the Lorentz force F = q(E + v × B=c), the potentials are not directly observable and only defined modulo a gauge transformation (9). Using (8) in the inhomogeneous Maxwell equations (3) and (4) yields 1 1 − A + r r · A + @ Φ = j; (10) c t c 1 − ∆Φ − @ r · A = ρ. (11) c t 1 2 2 Here, the d'Alembert operator is used with the sign convention as in , i.e., = ∆ − 1=c @t . It is clear that these two equations alone do not resolve the ambiguity in the choice of the potentials since these equations are of course still gauge invariant, because they are formulated originally in terms of the Maxwell equations (3) and (4) involving only the gauge invariant fields (E; B). Thus (10) and (11) do not provide any constraint for the choice of gauge, i.e., we can still impose one constraint on the potentials to facilitate the solution of the equations (10) and (11). A glance at (10) immediately shows that a promising choice for a gauge constraint is the Lorenz-gauge condition, 1 r · A + @ Φ = 0: (12) L c t L The index L indicates the Lorenz-gauge potentials. Then from (10) and (11) one finds the inho- mogeneous wave equations for the potentials 1 − Φ = ρ, − A = j; (13) L L c i.e., in the Lorenz gauge the equations for the Cartesian components of the vector potential decouple from each other as well as from the scalar potential. Of course, the inhomogeneous wave equation with a given source is also not uniquely solvable but one has to impose initial as well as boundary conditions to make its solution unique, because its solutions are only determined up to a solution of the homogeneous wave equation, and this can be constrained by imposing initial conditions as well as boundary conditions. For the here discussed case of the microscopic Maxwell equations the boundary conditions are usually imposed at spacial infinity implied by the physical situation. E.g., one usually has charges and currents only in a compact spatial region and thus looks for solutions of the wave equations (12) and (13) describing waves radiating outwards from these sources. Indeed, as correctly stated in1, also from a causality argument it is justified to choose the retarded solution for the potentials, Z 0 0 Z 0 0 3 0 ρ(t − jr − r j=c; r ) 3 0 j(t − jr − r j=c; r ) ΦL(t; r) = d r 0 ; AL(t; r) = d r 0 : (14) R3 4πjr − r j R3 4πcjr − r j The initial condition can then be satisfied by adding an appropriate solution of the homogeneous wave equations, ΦL = 0 and AL = 0. This of course implies that also the physical em. field (E; B) is given by retarded solutions and thus fulfill the demand of causal solutions that the observable electromagnetic field are \caused" by the presence of the charge and current densities 4 as sources, and the field depends at time t only on the configuration of these sources at the earlier 0 times tret = t − jr − r j=c.